(no subject)
A few months back I finished a reading project that took me about a year - the King James Bible. I'd never actually read the entire thing before, and I always had a gnawing little suspicion that I ought to. So one time when I was home, I borrowed my mother's copy. My mother offered some more modern versions that rely on better scholarship and translation, but I wanted the KJV. I wasn't reading it to uncover the meaning that the original authors put into it, but instead, the meaning that the English-speaking tradition has taken from it. In other words, for me this was more of an Anthropology or AmStud thing than an Ancient History or Religious Studies thing.
And it was quite interesting. It's nice to see for myself where the real emphasis lies, and to be able to compare that with what's often stressed in contemporary practice. And it provided a different perspective on current events. Reading the entire thing also put a nice perspective on the parts that get the most attention; the later bits just don't have the same meaning if you haven't gone through everything that came before.
I've heard that many people find the "begats" to be the most tedious bit, but I was interested enough in how the old Hebrew names were translated into 17th century English, that they went by fairly rapidly. Even the religious law could be made interesting, by trying to find patterns in the occurrences of "heave offerings" and "wave offerings" and so forth. What really got to me, though, were most of the Psalms and the prophets (the ones that continually prophesied doom and destruction). It's the same thing, over and over and over, in slightly different words. Ugh. Even Paul was better than that.
The bright spots for me were Ecclesiastes and the first three gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I don't know how to describe Ecclesiastes, except that it's slightly more accessible than the Tao Te Ching. That, and it occasionally feels like someone grafted religious faith onto an atheistic text, or perhaps the other way around. As for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I think I prefer the style of Matthew the most - Mark's too rough and Luke's too chatty - but they all seem to come from the same place, morally speaking. (And perhaps textually, too, from what I gather.) That moral center is probably the best part of the entire book, and it's a shame that it doesn't get enough attention nowadays. I mean, what's the fun of putting up the 10 commandments in a courthouse, when you could instead put up a giant stone tablet engraved with "judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven". I'd just love to see that above the door to every courtroom and prison in the country. I think it'd add a nice sense of perspective to the whole endeavor.
So yeah, Matthew, Mark, and Luke - mostly good (not perfect, sadly). But as for John... Much of what I dislike about modern Christianity comes from John and Paul. Too much emphasis on faith, not enough on works. Too much metaphysics and verbosity. Too Greek, and not in a good way. John does have a few good bits, though; I especially like Pilate's lines. And speaking of Yochanans, I found the Revelation to be surprisingly enjoyable - I had fun trying to simultaneously visualize the literal meaning, and figure out where in the metaphorical timeline we "are" right now.
But the thing that stood out the most was when I ran across certain phrases and choices of words that I recognized. Not just from other versions of the Bible, but from the last 400 years of English literature. I can't express how I felt when I realized that this is where it came from; the words and imagery in this book have been echoed over the centuries by everything that's been written since. I still get shivers when I think about it.
Overall, I found the experience fascinating, and I'd recommend it to anyone with the free time. (Which is quite a caveat.)
And it was quite interesting. It's nice to see for myself where the real emphasis lies, and to be able to compare that with what's often stressed in contemporary practice. And it provided a different perspective on current events. Reading the entire thing also put a nice perspective on the parts that get the most attention; the later bits just don't have the same meaning if you haven't gone through everything that came before.
I've heard that many people find the "begats" to be the most tedious bit, but I was interested enough in how the old Hebrew names were translated into 17th century English, that they went by fairly rapidly. Even the religious law could be made interesting, by trying to find patterns in the occurrences of "heave offerings" and "wave offerings" and so forth. What really got to me, though, were most of the Psalms and the prophets (the ones that continually prophesied doom and destruction). It's the same thing, over and over and over, in slightly different words. Ugh. Even Paul was better than that.
The bright spots for me were Ecclesiastes and the first three gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I don't know how to describe Ecclesiastes, except that it's slightly more accessible than the Tao Te Ching. That, and it occasionally feels like someone grafted religious faith onto an atheistic text, or perhaps the other way around. As for Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I think I prefer the style of Matthew the most - Mark's too rough and Luke's too chatty - but they all seem to come from the same place, morally speaking. (And perhaps textually, too, from what I gather.) That moral center is probably the best part of the entire book, and it's a shame that it doesn't get enough attention nowadays. I mean, what's the fun of putting up the 10 commandments in a courthouse, when you could instead put up a giant stone tablet engraved with "judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven". I'd just love to see that above the door to every courtroom and prison in the country. I think it'd add a nice sense of perspective to the whole endeavor.
So yeah, Matthew, Mark, and Luke - mostly good (not perfect, sadly). But as for John... Much of what I dislike about modern Christianity comes from John and Paul. Too much emphasis on faith, not enough on works. Too much metaphysics and verbosity. Too Greek, and not in a good way. John does have a few good bits, though; I especially like Pilate's lines. And speaking of Yochanans, I found the Revelation to be surprisingly enjoyable - I had fun trying to simultaneously visualize the literal meaning, and figure out where in the metaphorical timeline we "are" right now.
But the thing that stood out the most was when I ran across certain phrases and choices of words that I recognized. Not just from other versions of the Bible, but from the last 400 years of English literature. I can't express how I felt when I realized that this is where it came from; the words and imagery in this book have been echoed over the centuries by everything that's been written since. I still get shivers when I think about it.
Overall, I found the experience fascinating, and I'd recommend it to anyone with the free time. (Which is quite a caveat.)